BAKHSHISH SINGH DHALIWAL versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 31-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAGHUBAR DAYAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
' 
BAKHSHISH SINGH DHALIWAL 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
August 31, 1966 
[V. RAMASWAMI, V. BHARGAVA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.j 
Criminal Proc•dure Code, ss. 233, 234, 197, 342--Joinder of trials 
and charges-Joint trial with Government official for whose prosecution. 
sanction not obtained-Validity of trial-Examination of accused-Each 
item of evidence whether need be put to accused. 
Indian Penal Code, ss, 417, 42(}.'._Bills submitted to Government-Dis-
honestly psssed by Goverlimerot ofjicers--Payment whether results from 
Submission of false bill-Offence whether under s. ,417 or s. 420? 
Ordinance 29 of 1943-Section 72 of Tenth Schedule to Government 
of India Act, 1935-lndia and Burma (Emergency Provisions Act) 194() 
(3 & 4 Geo. 6, Ch. 33), s. 1(3)-Punjab Ordinance lll of 1946 s. 3, 
sub-s. (3 )-Punjab Act X of 1950--Constitution, continuance and recons~ 
titution o.J Special Tribunal. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 35-War Diaries maintained by army 
officer-Whether admissible under section. 
The appellant, a contractor was tried for offences under s. 420 Indian 
Penal Code in respect of false bills submitted by him to the Evacuee 
Government of Burma located at Simla fur work done during World War 
II. .Ten charges were framed against the appellant and four trials were 
held in respect of these charges. 
The appellant was convicted by the 
Special Tribunal of all the ten charges but the High Court convicted him 
only in respect of three. 
In appeals to this Court on certificate, 
HELD: (i) It could not be said that by sending twenty bills under 
one CO\llring letter the appellant had made only one representation. The 
claims related to a number of works or supplies of raw materials. 
A 
·representation in respect of each different work or each different supply 
of materials would be a separate and distinct representation from the 
ooe relating to another work carried out or supply made. The holding 
of four trials in respect of the different representations was therefore in 
order. [215 H; 216 DJ 
(ii) When one claim was made in respect of supplies to two places 
there could be only one charge in r~spect of that claim, and the trial of 
such a charge ·with two other charges was therefore proper. [216 GJ 
(iii) Tho officers who verified the bogus bills submitted by the appel-
lant could certainly be held guilty of abetting the appellant. But it could 
not be said that the payments that were made to the appellant were not 
connected with or induced by the representations made by the appellant 
himself or in his bills. In fact, it were those representations by the 
appellant which ultimately cnlminated in the Government of Burma 
parting with the money to satisfy those claims put forward by the appel-
lant. The .finding that the appellant was 
guilty of cheating in these 
circumstances was fully justified. [217 D-GJ 
Mita Prasad v. Emperor, (1920) 18 A.L.J. 371, distinguished. 
211 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1967] I S.C.R. 
(iv) In every case where property is delivered by a person cheated, 
A 
there must always b.! a s1age "-·hen the person makes up his 
mind 
r.:> 
give the property on accepting the false representations made to him. 
lt cannot be said that in such cases the person commiuiog the Offence can 
only be triecl for the simple offence of cheating under s. 417 l.P.C. and 
cannot he tried under s. 420 because the person cheated parted with 
his properly subsequent to making up his mind 10 do so. [21 X BJ 
( v) The joint trial of th~ appellant wirh one of the olliC>'rs who 
B 
~anctioned his bills "''as not vitiared bv lack of sanction under s. 
197 
Cr. P.C. because an officer abetting the offence of cheating by another cannot 
be said to be acting y,·ithin the scopC' of his duties as public servanl. [219 
DJ 
K. Sarwant Singh v. State of P1<njab [1960) 2 S.C.R. 89, relied on. 
Suni/ K1<mar Pan/ v. State of We.rt Bengal, A.l.R. 1965 S.C. 706, 
distin.guished. 
No de novo trial was necessary after the separation of the appellunl's 
trial from that of the said officer. So far as the appellant was concerned 
the entire trial took place while he was present and the fact that the 
officer was jointly tried with him for some time did not in any v•ay affect. the 
appellunt. [219 G) 
(vi) Ordinance 29 of 1943 under which. the Special Tribunal was 
constituted did not expire within six months of being is:>.ucd. It was not 
affected by the provision to that effect containned in s. 72 of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.